It is an interesting question, when we look at unprecedented obstruction of Obama and still he has hundreds of accomplishments, I wonder.

It is important for us to talk about.

Did you know Obama has accomplished this much?


http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

Obama has accomplished a lot, and I like that he is using his executive muscle much more effectively in his second term than his first. Though, of course, forcing things through Congress is always the most ideal.

However, on those moving forward, I believe Hillary is in the best position to even eclipse what Obama has done. This is simply for the fact that the Clinton's are both ruthless politicians.

We know for a fact that no matter who we nominate, that the unprecedented obstruction will continue, and will likely even intensify. The only way to fight that is through aggressive tactics against our political enemies, similar to tactics that have been used against us for years and years by Republicans. The Clinton's will do that easily.

The downside to that fact is that Hillary is further to the right than Bernie Sanders, which in turn means the things she focuses on and achieves may be out of step with liberal ideals and values.

That's why I'm stuck. It doesn't do any good to win, if once you are there you can't govern. I would be naturally drawn to Bernie Sanders, if not for the fact that I believe he would literally be as lame duck as can be imagined. I admire the fact that he won't go after Hillary, and greatly respect that. In fact, I think it should be the model for all the other candidates--we don't need to kneecap our own allies--despite our differences, even the most "moderate" Republican is far worse.

But we already know what is coming. We have seen now what our enemies do to our candidates. We have watched them try and destroy both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. We have watched how low they'd sink to do it. The next candidate and Democratic President will be no different.

A few of the Hillary folks smear Bernie but very few.

I like the idea of a 24/7 Democratic Socialist message coming from the White House for 4 solid years, but at the same time I do think you are right about Hillary.

There is value in having a Democratic Socialist message coming from the White House. However, at the same time, I've been around long enough to almost picture how that will play out. We both know how the beltway media would cover such a message, and how it will be distorted for the public. So, while I see the value, I am not sure how much more effective it would be coming from the White House.

Especially since we're at a point in time when we need someone with the muscle to push things through Congress. We have so much shit that needs to be done, and some of it is insanely time sensitive (if not already too late) like climate change legislation. Or hell, lives are already being ruined by lack of comprehensive immigration reform.

Then we have some real major shit coming down the economic pipe, such as further automation, which is going to push more and more people out of jobs and the economy as a whole. It's a time for radical solutions and ideas, and what we really need right now is an FDR like candidate. Someone with big ideas and radical solutions, who also has the political ability to accomplish the agenda. Unfortunately, I am just not seeing it in anyone who is running.

especially considering your alleged quandary. He has ACCOMPLISHED things, Martin O'Malley:

1. Ended death penalty in Maryland
2. Prevented fracking in Maryland and put regulations in the way to prevent next GOP Gov Hogan fom easily allowing fracking.
3. Provided health insurance for 380,000
4. Reduced infant mortality to an all time low.
5. Provided meals to thousands of hungry children and moved toward a goal for eradicating childhood hunger.
6. Enacted a $10.10 living wage and a $11. minimum wage for State workers.
7. Supporter the Dream Act
8. Cut income taxes for 86% of Marylanders (raised taxes on the rich).
9. Reformed Maryland’s tax code to make it more progressive.
10. Enacted some of the nation’s most comprehensive reforms to protect homeowners from foreclosure.

Mother Jones magazine called him the best candidate on environmental issues.
Article here:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/12/martin-omalley-longshot-presidential-candidate-and-real-climate-hawk needs visibility debates will give him, and to throw up your hands at this stage,

To suggest you, an alleged 'extreme left' person, would consider hrc as your default candidate suggests you have more serious problems than whom to support in the primaries.

of candidates

I didn't say he didn't accomplish anything, or that he wasn't qualified. I said he had no chance of winning the primary. I think O'Malley is a perfectly good candidate, and is certainly further to the left than Hillary, which I like.

The problem is, like voting third party in general elections, is that he becomes a throwaway vote, and ultimately taking votes away from the candidate closest to him politically and most likely to win. (Right now that would be Sanders.)

I could see myself supporting O'Malley in the primaries if the following things happened:
1. There was a legitimate chance that he could win the primary.
2. I was confident that he could win the general election.
3. I was confident that he would be able to actually govern at least as well as Obama has, if not better.

If O'Malley could cross those three thresholds, he becomes an easy choice over Hillary. However, we have to acknowledge the realities of our first past the post voting system. It literally forces us to choose between two candidates, or risk throwing our vote away. Right now, that choice is between Hillary and Sanders.

My statement was not intended as a slight against O'Malley, simply an acknowledgement of where his campaign currently stands.

Here is a video explaining First Past the Post Voting systems:

0% 2% 1% 4% (his high point) 1% 1%

Those are Omalley's polling numbers for the last six polls. The ones before that aren't any better.

For whatever reason, O'Malley isn't resonating with the Democrats who aren't supporting Clinton. Blame the media, blame "The Party Bosses" all you want, but Sanders has found a way to resonate with voters and O'Malley hasn't.

VOTE FOR BERNIE SANDERS

I know what I'm getting with Bernie Sanders as well. Hillary can be cajoled, bullied, or pushed by us to adopt more liberal positions. In fact, the benefit of having Sanders in the race, and having him do so well in polling is pushing her leftward. This is a good sign.

However, can you make an argument to me how Bernie Sanders would actually accomplish anything he promises if he were elected President? How would he deal with the unprecedented obstruction that Bill Clinton and Obama have faced? How will he deal with the abuse that will be heaped upon him by the media, and his political rivals--both Republicans and those inside the party? How does he plan to deliver on anything he promises?

.... the other is Hillary. One believes military force should be used only as a last resort, the other gave George Bush permission to wage preemptive war, the repercussions of which include a young boy's body washing ashore fleeing the nightmare that vote is responsible for as a horrible echo.

What they stand for is infinitely more important than guessing how they'd perform. Don't forget Bill Clinton supported and signed some egregious rightwing policy and laws respectively.

Finally, I would guess she'd fare poorly in the general election. I think Bernie would win handily.

I agree that Sanders would likely win in the General Election, at least as things currently stand among the Republican candidates. Trump has done wonderful things to damage their party, and perhaps make any Republican un-electable this cycle. We cannot also discount the drip, drip, drip of Clinton scandals, and how that erodes Hillary's perception of trustworthiness. It doesn't matter that they are stupid scandals that mean nothing, it could damage her chances of winning in the general election. That is something that has to be considered and weighed.

I'm sure the media would crucify Bernie for being a "socialist" but the reality is that so long as he doesn't run away from the label, and presses back against the media aggressively and hard, he will be fine. The people who would be swayed by that line of attack would already be mostly voting Republican anyway. That's supposed to be Sander's "weak spot." I don't consider it to be very weak, so long as he handles it properly. (Basically the Trump tactic: Double down, go hard against those who question it, embrace it fully and completely. It shows strength. Most people are low information voters, and they like that approach.)

You're right that Bill Clinton supported and signed some disgusting pieces of legislation. Look at what he did in regard to criminal justice, welfare, and LGBT issues. Awful. However, the difference between then and now is that those of us on the left are more unified and organized. We have actually been able to pull the party further to the left than it was in the Clinton years. This is a good thing. We can go after Hillary, as we have done with Obama, if she wants to stray too far off the reservation.

Frankly, I more-or-less think Hillary is going to continue the Obama status quo. The worst thing she is likely to do is go further right on foreign policy. However, it's not like she can just wake up one day and start a war without a revolt. Keep in mind, Obama wanted to invade Syria until he felt the push back and realized there was no public support. It's not like we are completely powerless, as at a minimum even if she makes it into her second term, we still have the ability to use leverage over Democrats in congress and erode her support there.

So, with this in mind, it matters how they'd perform once in office. If Bernie were to become President, how would he get anything he has promised done? How would he govern? Bernie Sanders is a good man with strong principles and values, but that isn't going to save him from suffering under the same withering attacks that Bill Clinton and Obama have endured. How is he going to handle that? We have seen with two Democratic Presidents now how Republicans will treat ANYONE we nominate who becomes President. Who is best able to handle this problem, and get what we want done... well... done. I don't want the person we nominate to just be a seat warmer for someone else down the road. We have problems and issues that need solved now.

Bernie can/will get things done if voters are active in the midterm elections, and actually elect people who represent their ideals (most of the population does agree with sanders)

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.boldprogressives.org/images/Big_Ideas-Polling_PDF-1.pdf

I am totally with you on being left of Bernie--but I have come to the conclusion that I won't vote for someone just because I think they can do better in putting their ideas into law. It's a disadvantage in my mind, why vote for someone if you don't agree with their policies? Their decisions will shape America for many generations to come, and that is why my vote will go to Bernie and I do believe that is a pragmatic choice; the other is putting my beliefs second and the establishment first. If I were to cave and know I voted for someone who didn't represent me, and yet I helped to get them elected would be counter intuitive. Always remember that change comes with voting and it always starts with one vote, who stands up for what they believe in--change won't happen unless we can stand in unison.

I love that you opened up a dialogue, no matter which candidate you choose!

Depending on your state you have four to ten months to decide.

I send a gentle hug.

And you also sound like you made your choice quite some time ago.

j/k

My union is under severe attack by bad Supreme Court decisions, with the promise of more to come to hurt the entire labor movement and along with their curtailing of the VRA, I am taking a cautious stance. Like you, I am further left than any of the candidates, but I fear that progressive movements would be severely injured or killed with a right-wing supreme court in place for 50 years.

I like Hillary and she's making good inroads with labor, and her numbers are great in the Obama coalition, and my union is supporting her. I decided early to go with her. If anyone else wins the primary, I will support them wholeheartedly, I just feel this is the right place to put my energy right now.

I just don't like feeling like I am pushed into supporting Hillary by default. When Obama ran, I went hard against Hillary. I was strongly behind Obama. All of the criticisms that I made against Hillary in the past still stand, though she has drifted more leftward over time--however, that is because the party has moved further to the left. (People like us fought to make it so.) The DLC no longer has the power and sway that it once did during the Bill Clinton years, and I largely feel that Hillary will sustain the Obama status quo. If she makes any shifts it would be on foreign policy and it would be shifts to the right.

However, a big part of me just wants to believe in Sanders. I'm just struggling to do it. I was hoping there would be some knock out argument for Sanders that I hadn't considered, the argument that not only would he win the general election, but he would get things done once in office, and here is how... and then I'd be all like, "Damn it! I couldn't believe I didn't see it!" I'd then be able to get excited, and throw my support behind him. Unfortunately, I haven't seen that happen yet.

Going with Hillary feels like getting rejected from your dream college, and getting stuck with your safety school.

I went big for Obama in 2008, he felt like a repudiation of the Bush years, a complete break. We're in a different moment now, and getting a Dem elected after a two-term Democratic administration hasn't really been done before. So it's all kind of new terrain for everyone.

I agree the party is trending more leftward, but we still have a reaction from the right as a backlash against us. Opposing them isn't sexy for movement veterans, but still must be done.

I think it's a great discussion though! I am having it with people on and off DU, we are in another unique moment in time. Mostly I am for creating a plausible path to getting more progressive reform through our government, and since the leg. is hopeless until the next census in 2020, the Supremes and the White House are the ones we need to keep hold of. Opinions differ on the best way to do this, but like you, I'm not seeing the compelling Sanders path.

I trust Sanders to not fill his cabinet with a bunch of wrong-headed corporatists and open TeaPublKlans.

I trust Sanders to not find some stupid war to get into without it being the last resort and therefore not a stupid action.

I trust Sanders not to be opening environmentally sensitive areas to big oil and not to be pushing fracking all around the globe.

I trust Sanders to not be interested in sell out Pete Peterson approved "adjustments" and "modifications" to Social Security.

I trust Sanders to oppose more stupid ass deregulation.

I trust Sanders to not be enamored with fox in the henhouse self regulation.

I trust Sanders to nominate all around liberal judges that are true civil libertarians who don't build their philosophy around the rights of and deference to the corporations and are unwilling to sell our democracy to the highest bidders, time after relentless time until one of the right ones get in then rinse and repeat.

I trust Sanders to not even have the first thought about loading up on the likes of the Rubins, Duncan, Petreous, Summers, and Clapper. I can't imagine him pulling a Duncan out of his hat, his head isn't put on in such a way to even make such a possibility. He isn't going to be considering folks with such a worldview.

Cynical and pragmatic? Understandable so vote Bernie Sanders he is the least likely candidate to fuck up things further or to be surrounded by a bunch villains trying get richer than any Pharaoh (and worse the ideolocial doing it as "public service" to facilitate the former fuckers on the cheap) watching the world burn.

I trust Bernie Sanders as well. The problem is not that I distrust Bernie. In fact, if I had to rate the candidate that I trusted the most to actually try and do what he says he'll do, Bernie Sanders would win by a landslide.

Understand, I have absolutely zero malice at all toward Bernie Sanders. I actually WANT to support him. I WANT to believe in him.

The problem is that after watching Bill Clinton and Obama in office, the Republican playbook is predictable. We know what is coming regardless of who we nominate. So, with this in mind, if Bernie were to become President, how would he get anything he has promised done? How would he govern? Bernie Sanders is a good man with strong principles and values, but that isn't going to save him from suffering under the same withering attacks that Bill Clinton and Obama have endured. How is he going to handle that? We have seen with two Democratic Presidents now how Republicans will treat ANYONE we nominate who becomes President. Who is best able to handle this problem, and get what we want done... well... done? I don't want the person we nominate to just be a seat warmer for someone else down the road. We have problems and issues that need solved now.

We have to many serious and perilous problems without digging more holes in process of trying to "get things done" or worse fucking more up regardless of any effort at a beneficial lift.

We also have too many problems to be nominating someone with no interest is solving many of them and seems focused and ideologically predisposed to exacerbating many of them.

I din't know why you assume Sanders could not accomplish anything.

Okay. Reality. The GOP is likely to try to do the same they they did to Obama. Do their best to stop whatever Democrat is in the White House.

They be equally obstinate with Clinton or Sanders or O'Malley.

But Bernie can be a tough sonofva bitch.

It doesn't matter who is the nominee, and which one becomes President. What was done to Bill Clinton and what was done to Obama will be done to whatever Democrat enters the White House. They may even up their game and try to do something worse.

We know that they will fight to obstruct any plan Sander's has and intends to try and implement. So, with that said, if he were to become President, how does he intend to get anything he has promised done? How does he intend to govern? How does he intend to overcome not only the obstruction of the Republicans, but also the obstruction that will be created by the media toward his agenda?

For me, those are the big questions.

Two things about Sanders which I think gets overlooked.

He has a clear set of positions and values and goals. And his is staunch in them. But at the same time, he does recognize that peopel do have different views and have to be negotiated with.

Democrats have too often (and he has noted this about Obama) started negotiations on GOP terms, rather then their own, They start from a halfway point, while the GOP starts with what they really want. So thee negotiations -- and public debate -- are rigged to the GOP/conservatives from the start. So if a "compromise" is reached, it is 3/4 of the way to the GOP/conservative position, rather than toward the Democratic liberal one.

Example: Universal Health Care -- True progressive position/Single Payer. Conservative position/Unregulated Free Market. Thee compromise would be a Public Option Expansion of Medicare, within the private ystem. But Democrats STARTED with a mildly modified GOP/Conservative plan, and even the compromise of Public Optiton was dumped.

Sanders, I believe, would start with Universal Single Payer, and perhaps end up with a public option as a compromise.

BUT ALSO, Sanders recognizes that people are not monolithic "teams." The team mentality has led to overall polarization and gridlock, and an inability to deal with issues on their own terms.

For example, he has noted: "A voter might say to me 'I disagree with you about gay marriage. I say, all right we disagree on that. But you're making $20,000 year full time. You can't afford health insurance. We need to change that. How about we focus on the things we can agree on and fix those? We can handle the things we don't agree on seperately."

That may make it more possible to build coalitions and concensus, without every issue getting sidetracked by the "team" polarization that has made it impossible to focus on specific issues.

I know that's simplistic, but it's a big difference. I think in overall terms, these things would make him able to accomplish more.

When he was first elected mayor, the city council was obstructing what he wanted. So he campaigned against them and got a better city council.

One of the most major pieces of legislation passed last year was a Veterans bill that Sanders sponsored, and negotiated with the Republican House until it was able to pass and become law.

Who I think will continue to have the most impact building off the progress of the Obama administration. I do have some other issues but that is really my deciding factor. Keep an open mind. You have time. With people knowledgeable such as yourself, I think the debates are going to be very illuminating. Including for O'Malley.

Yet you want centralism and the same old shit to ''get things done'' what ever that means.

What issues are you further left on than Bernie Sanders?

Are you not willing to take a stand on what you believe?

But you are willing to accept the same tired solutions?

confusing post.

There are lots of places where I am to the left of Bernie Sanders, especially on social issues. However, Sander's is primarily running a campaign focused around economic issues, and so I'll address that.

Sanders believes in 'the value and dignity of work.' That's a pretty mainstream position. As a result, he supports things like raising the minimum wage to be a living wage. That's a position that I also support, but for me that is a compromise position. I reject the notion that having to sell your labor in any way enhances or gives value or dignity onto another human being. As a result, I advocate for a guaranteed living income. On a practical level, this would look and function similar to social security, except everyone would get it from age 18 (or post-emancipation for those under 18). This pretty much means that everyone would, at a minimum, would be living in the middle class via a massive wealth distribution.

When it comes to labor, I believe that individuals should primarily pursue interests that they are passionate about and that interest them, rather than having to work for economic survival. I fundamentally see this as no different than economic serfdom or wage slavery. The bulk of people hate their jobs, and would be doing something else if given the opportunity. I want people to have that opportunity, I want to liberate people from the labor market. This gives laborers an advantage in negotiations with potential capitalists, because they do not NEED their jobs. It also makes horrible jobs that no one wants actually pay wages that reflect the work.

This is also a necessary move as automation and technological advancement nudges more and more lower skilled laborers out of the market. This also provides security due to instability in the market. At present, workers can be let go at any time, whether as cost cutting measures, technological advancement, or outsourcing--a guaranteed living income is security against this reality. It also balances the scales between laborers and capitalists, which is the root of income inequality.

I would propose handling this, and other government spending through three primary taxes: a wealth tax (as opposed to an income tax), a Land Value Tax System, and Demurrage (negative interest rates--a tax on hording money). Although I believe a system of aggressive demurrage is likely more than enough to pay for such a massive welfare state that invests heavily in the people, each tax has additional intentions behind it aside from generating funds for the government to redistribute. A wealth tax diminishes the power of individuals to horde wealth in our society, especially as they pass their wealth down from one generation to the next--creating a situation where we have economic elites. A LVT system encourages maximizing land use and increases urbanization, reducing sprawl. It also prevents the hording of land by a wealthy elite, and pushes those who do own land to maximize their use of it. A system of demurrage gives us more control over the economy during times of economic recession and depression. It also acts as a strong deterrent (primarily for the wealthy and large institutions) to horde and sit on large sums of wealth. It encourages them to invest that wealth back into the economy.

So, in short, if you simply want to summarize the philosophical difference rather than the policy difference, Bernie Sanders views unemployment, underemployment, and wage stagnation as a problem. I view unemployment as potential freedom, and the problem being not having a job, but having to work to provide for yourself and your family in the first place. I believe the basic necessities of modern life--not just the necessities for survival--should be provided to everyone by default. Therefore, work becomes optional, and it gives laborers a stronger position to negotiate and fight with capitalists. There is not a problem with the system the reason that people are unemployed--people are unemployed because their labor is not required, and the system is running efficiently. I believe that this will only grow worse and worse as automation and technological advancement continues, and we are facing a crisis in which only very specialized human labor becomes required. Therefore, I think a lot of Bernie Sander's ideas on how to fix the problem, is a bit like trying to plug the holes in a sinking ship. It might slow down the sinking, but it's going to end up on the bottom of the ocean floor anyway--that's where capitalism is heading. Bernie and I are both socialists, but his views seem to be rooted in 20th century thinking and problems.

Here is a great video on discussing the coming wave of automation, and why we need a guaranteed living income.

From your posts here that I've read and from this op, I think you're more naturally a Hillary supporter.

Why support any candidate in the primary that you don't authentically support?

If "able to accomplish" = "able to compromise core beliefs to take action that benefits a few of us a lot and most of us not at all" well, I don't see that as an important measure. At least not in a primary.

Save the nose-holding for the general.

Why do you think they are so desperate to get her elected. And then when anyone tries to point out how regular people are once again getting screwed, they will push back that you are only attacking her because she is a woman.

While they have everyone distracted with the "gender" war, she will be able to deliver on her promises to the 1% and corporations.

A neo-liberal "centrist" has that built in excuse for moving the country to the right in "Machiavellian" negotiations with Republicans, because they "can't accomplish" anything by being straightforward. If Clinton is elected, every time she gives ground, it will be billed as some exponential chess strategy.

Sanders is straightforward about who he is and what he stands for. He doesn't pretend differently. He also knows how to negotiate. He works differently, by finding common ground as a starting point, and recognizing what is possible at the time, what isn't, and what steps can be achieved.

Frankly, those who pose obstacles in achieving a progressive agenda like Sanders a hell of a lot better than they like Clinton, and are more likely to work with him than with her.

I think he'll do a better job getting things done than HRC.

Another point: Sanders has made exactly one promise, and one promise only: to make sure that any candidate he nominates for the Supreme Court will work to overturn citizens united.

The rest? He's laying out his agenda: what he's going to work for. He also, in every single speech, makes it clear that he CAN'T do it alone. That's honesty and transparency. He's talking about what has to happen to achieve his agenda, one issue at a time. I like that, because instead of the constant defeatism we hear as conventional wisdom, he lays the path out, acknowledges the obstacles, and rolls up his sleeves...and asks us to do the same.